You think Dean is fronting, but the dude who just became a democrat like a year ago isn't?

Wed Jan 21, 2004 3:09 pm

shambhala

Joined: 25 Jul 2002
Posts: 6305
Location: the barber of hard truths

you see

you're operating under the flawed assumption that i give a fuck whether or not someone calls himself a political 'blood' or 'crip'.

the truth is that its usually the same people with relatively similar personal agendas.
i have been following clark for a few years. he is
a. smarter than anyone else in the field, rep or dem
b. more experienced in the just application of military force than anyone
c. a moderate

in a general election, he beats george bush, i promise you. the only people who care about whether or not he's a 'true' democrat are hard-left old-party democrats and hard-right conservative talk show hosts who are afraid of him, and try to use his moderate mentality to discredit him.

i like to judge candidates on personality, not affiliation. i liked john mccain in 2000, i like clark in 2004.

Wed Jan 21, 2004 4:34 pm

quasifoto

Joined: 30 Jun 2002
Posts: 975
Location: Albany

God damn, it's only been 1 caucus! How can people get so nuts? After the 3rd round if he's still hurting then that's something, but it's been blown out of proportion now. Dean (mostly) and Kucinich were the first ones to speak out against the war and the Bush administration. It was a gut thing. That goes so much farther than the rest of the Dems. Doesn't it?

Wed Jan 21, 2004 4:55 pm

MessiahCarey

Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 10924

Re: you see

shambhala wrote: you're operating under the flawed assumption that i give a fuck whether or not someone calls himself a political 'blood' or 'crip'.

the truth is that its usually the same people with relatively similar personal agendas.
i have been following clark for a few years. he is
a. smarter than anyone else in the field, rep or dem
b. more experienced in the just application of military force than anyone
c. a moderate

in a general election, he beats george bush, i promise you. the only people who care about whether or not he's a 'true' democrat are hard-left old-party democrats and hard-right conservative talk show hosts who are afraid of him, and try to use his moderate mentality to discredit him.

i like to judge candidates on personality, not affiliation. i liked john mccain in 2000, i like clark in 2004.

Word the fuck up.

- Shane

Wed Jan 21, 2004 4:59 pm

Dee

Joined: 19 Jul 2002
Posts: 7872

Dude, I'm just tired of fucking MOR candidates.

We don't need another Clinton or another Jimmy Carter.

I'd like to see us get some balls and vote for a candidate that believes in what we believe, not one that "we think will beat bush cuz if he's in the military the right wing nuts will vote for him."

I don't think the army dude is a great candidate.
yo.

Wed Jan 21, 2004 5:05 pm

Dee

Joined: 19 Jul 2002
Posts: 7872

(If I was of age last time, I would have voted for Nader...don't think that labels have anything to do with my selections. The fact that he was a republican suggests that he's a very middle-of-the-road candidate).

edit: so I just looked at the video, and its not nearly as bad as I was expecting.

Man, I really don't get why everyone is freaking about this...

Wed Jan 21, 2004 6:47 pm

quasifoto

Joined: 30 Jun 2002
Posts: 975
Location: Albany

Dee-
I just saw it a bunch on TV and heard in the context of the event it was perfectly understandable. The crowd was totally into it. He would say a state and people would scream YEAH. They were all trying to be positive. I just don't get it. Why is this such a big deal???

And Nader may still run, please don't vote for him.

Wed Jan 21, 2004 7:53 pm

neighborino

Joined: 09 Sep 2003
Posts: 74
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota

Re: yeah

shambhala wrote:
i never really liked him personally, i think anyone who grew up on park ave, went to yale, and got a doctorate yet wants to portray an "everyman" mentality is too sly for my taste

Some of us attack 'em at the root.

Wed Jan 21, 2004 9:22 pm

rlorg

Joined: 02 May 2003
Posts: 474

Carter was middle of the road?

answer: No, no he wasn't.

Wed Jan 21, 2004 9:28 pm

Dee

Joined: 19 Jul 2002
Posts: 7872

rlorg wrote: Carter was middle of the road?

answer: No, no he wasn't.

What are you, kidding me?

What was his progressive agenda exactly?

His record is extremely middle-of-the-road. This guy was not a "leftist" by any means.

Wed Jan 21, 2004 10:48 pm

rlorg

Joined: 02 May 2003
Posts: 474

djdee2005 wrote:

rlorg wrote: Carter was middle of the road?

answer: No, no he wasn't.

What are you, kidding me?

What was his progressive agenda exactly?

His record is extremely middle-of-the-road. This guy was not a "leftist" by any means.

He created the federal Department of Education, he pushed through the most comprehensive and PROGRESSIVE worker's rights package since FDR, he was the first US president to make human rights a real and actual part of his foriegn policy, he pardoned those who avoided the Vietnam draft, he cut military spending (THE ONLY PRESIDENT TO DO SO IN THE LAST FIFTY OR SO YEARS), and much more.

He was far from middle of the road. He wasn't the best president for a variety of reasons, but he was the most liberal president we've had since FDR.

Wed Jan 21, 2004 11:22 pm

Dee

Joined: 19 Jul 2002
Posts: 7872

Dude, LBJ's great society program.

More progressive than FDR.

Jimmy Carter did some good things - as did Clinton. But neither of them were particularly liberal politicians. Carter was elected because he moved to the center in terms of how he RAN as a politician.
Howard Dean's actually pretty moderate.
But he RUNS as a liberal. Which is more important.

Wed Jan 21, 2004 11:36 pm

Soul Khansenses

Joined: 12 Aug 2002
Posts: 2110

Re: right, back in reality

shambhala wrote: dean completely ruined his campaign based solely on that sound byte.

If Dean ruined his campaign solely based on that sound byte, then I'll be running Pat Robertson's next bid.

You know who said that he's ruined his campaign? Ben Stein. That's about the level of political expertise it takes to call this Dean's undoing.

This was enthusiasm, ripe for exploitation, but not a screaming elegy. Dean still has a chance of taking at least second in New Hampshire, like Clinton.

And fuck a military man in the White House, no matter how good his intentions. I want a bit more every-day tension between the armed forces command and the President than Clark would likely provide. Granted, Clark supports some nice, unique reforms, such as the peripheral priority of allowing openly gay people in the military (which I think is inevitable soon, anyway, no matter the President at the helm), however, he lacks the political energy and personality to win the country over. The motherfucker's more boring than Al Gore.

By the way, Carter's "Better Jobs and Income" program never came to a vote. Now that's liberalism is in action.

Thu Jan 22, 2004 2:36 am

rlorg

Joined: 02 May 2003
Posts: 474

yeah I guess the Great Society was progressive, but Johnson himself was one of the scummiest scumbags ever to inhabit the White House.

Carter did have a progressive agenda, he just didn't get it accomplished, and he did not run as a moderate. He ran as a liberal democrat. There isn't as much to point to in his accomplishments because he was an ineffective president, for a lot of reasons.

The other thing about Carter is that he's the last truly principled man we've had as President. He didn't do everything right. He supported the Shah, which was obviously a mistake politically as well as morally, since Reagan beat him because he made a shady deal with the Ayatollah. He didn't push as agressively for universal health care as he should have. He didn't delegate responsibility well enough. But he got shafted by the Reagan machine.

He's also the best EX-PRESIDENT we've ever had.

Thu Jan 22, 2004 3:39 am

Soul Khansenses

Joined: 12 Aug 2002
Posts: 2110

rlorg wrote:
The other thing about Carter is that he's the last truly principled man we've had as President. He didn't do everything right. He supported the Shah, which was obviously a mistake politically as well as morally, since Reagan beat him because he made a shady deal with the Ayatollah. He didn't push as agressively for universal health care as he should have. He didn't delegate responsibility well enough. But he got shafted by the Reagan machine.

He's also the best EX-PRESIDENT we've ever had.

I'd agree, but I'm a real sucker for Clinton.

Without the fellatio.

Thu Jan 22, 2004 3:58 am

Jump to:

Goto page Previous1, 2, 3, 4Next
All times are GMT - 6 Hours. The time now is Sun Aug 02, 2015 2:29 pm